Abortion

You're throwing the kind of arguments around that nobody from the opposition takes seriously, been there, done that.

I mean they can reject them if they want to, but this issue does ultimately boil down to philosophy and ethics

Yes, however the way in which an argument is presented has a differing chance of being respected to a degree, even by someone who might be pro choice I'm sure. Meaning that if we're not giving concrete examples and just putting everyone in a box, and justifying our position from a one-sided position won't encourage the person with opposite views to even consider why we think the way we do.

Definitely. How would you personally present the argument?

Like I've done above, in my first post. It wasn't just saying you people are this and that without any concrete arguments, I've given examples and elaborated.

it's the womans choice so if she chooses an abortion it's her choice

Women shouldn't get a choice: abortions should be mandatory.

@46, it takes 2 to have a baby, just saying.

@46:
Do you condone murrder

Disappointed to see that the normy "pro choice" arguments have yet to advance beyond poorly thought out, low IQ slop.

the fuck? no

I think you just proved his point with that post.

Don't kill your kids at any age, chat. Just aint good YK.

i just lurned something today, in the US and manatoba and alberta Canada you can bring your baby to the firestation if you don't want it and they will take him or her and find a new home

Of all places, the fire station?

I randomly came across this thread and think this is actually an interesting subject. I came across some arguments that I would like to ask questions about.
First: Terminating your pregnancy is infanticide because neither your unborn infant nor your newborn infant has agency.
I'm assuming this refers to the agency of choosing whether or not you want to continue to exist. Please tell me if I'm off base here.
So my question is this: the relationship between the fetus and the mother is fundamentally parasitic, literally. It's completely dependent on the mother to sustain itself, using her as a source of nutrients and energy at her expense. If we value human autonomy and agency, why does this suddenly stop when that human wants the autonomy to remove it? You could say that it's killing something that is alive and human, therefore a crime, but that definition goes far, far outside the framework of abortion and becomes irrational extremely fast. By that logic, a certain repeated human reproductive act would always constitute hundreds of thousands of homicides. You could say this applies only to fetal cells that have begun to develop. Fine. What do you do when you discover that your fetus has a congenital deformity that means it won't survive more than a few minutes after birth? Do we push the mother through that trauma? What if she doesn't want to go through that? Do we force her anyway? What about human autonomy and agency? Please help me understand.
The unborn have equal worth to those who are born.
Okay. Do you mean every single human who has yet to be born in the future? Do you mean only those currently developing or about to be born?
A fetus is a fetus. No matter how old or young it is, it's still a biological entity.
Isn't that self-evident? What are you pointing at here, exactly? Do you mean all biological entities deserve to exist?

Are you saying that periods are murder? If so, you've not paid attention in your Biology class have you?

No, I think he meant masturbation, which is a bizarre argument since even in the testicles they last for something like a month or so, likely less, and are no more than a singular cell.
In other words, a spirm is not an example of complex organic life.
EDIT:
They last up to 3 months but start dying after a week.

Yes. But I wasn't talking about complexity, specifically. I was asking how far down we're going to apply the 'this is a human and therefore is sacrosanct' attribute. Sorry if that was unclear.

yes, i thot it was a bit wierd but it can be done